<div dir="ltr">> <span style="font-size:12.8px">I am eager to convince people to write a cadquery interface around the pythonized version of verbnurbs</span><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">@Bryan - You could start a discussion about this on the <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/cadquery">CadQuery Google Group</a>.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Dave (the creator of CadQuery) likes B-Rep pretty well and would like to see CadQuery move to PythonOCC, but we could at least talk about it. I'd be interested in creating an experimental fork of CadQuery if this group can come to a consensus on what the best path forward is.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">@Daniel</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">> </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">This is one of the big questions I hope to be able to answer through </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">this reading group.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">That would be great if this group could do that.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">> </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">CGAL's CSG code works on polygon meshes (more specifically Nef </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">polyhedra), which I understand as a B-rep. Is there some F-Rep code in </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">there also?</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">In the first Hangout, it was mentioned that CSG encompasses F-Rep, so I was assuming that CGAL was (at least mostly) F-Rep. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to CGAL though, and am happy to be corrected.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div>> <span style="font-size:12.8px">If the goal is software that can fill the role of Solidworks, CSG </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">operations on polygon meshes isn't enough, though it's probably a </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">necessary part.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I'm not sure about other members of the group, but my personal interest is two part. Feel free to skip the links in #1 if you're only interested in a Solidworks alternative.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">1. Have a solid open source kernel to build scripted CAD (CadQuery) on top of. The goal would be to (among other things) help continue the work that's being done by Mach 30 through <a href="https://opendesignengine.net/projects/mtk/wiki">MTK</a> and projects like the <a href="https://opendesignengine.net/projects/yavin-thruster/wiki">Yavin thruster</a>. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQJY-_c7Fg8">This video</a> from the Open Hardware Summit gives a broad overview of what I'm talking about. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">2. The second is to have the FOSS Solidworks alternative that you've mentioned.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Although 1 and 2 could be part of the same interface, I don't believe that you can force all FOSS users to do scripted CAD. You need a traditional point-and-click CAD GUI as well for the majority of users. Even with one on one training, I've had a hard time getting traditional CAD users to embrace CadQuery. It's too much of a shift in thinking.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Jeremy</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Daniel Bergey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bergey@alum.mit.edu" target="_blank">bergey@alum.mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 2015-11-09 at 22:59, Jeremy Wright <<a href="mailto:wrightjmf@gmail.com">wrightjmf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Is there a single methodology (F-Rep, B-Rep, NURBS) that the various<br>
> open source (and open hardware) communities could focus on developing,<br>
> or is it not a one-size-fits-all situation?<br>
<br>
</span>This is one of the big questions I hope to be able to answer through<br>
this reading group.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> From the research I've done, there are three main open source kernels with<br>
> very different methodologies.<br>
><br>
> 1. OpenCASCADE (B-Rep)<br>
> 2. CGAL (F-Rep)<br>
> 3. OpenNURBS (NURBS)<br>
<br>
</span>CGAL's CSG code works on polygon meshes (more specifically Nef<br>
polyhedra), which I understand as a B-rep. Is there some F-Rep code in<br>
there also?<br>
<br>
I think of NURBs as also being a type of B-rep, a bit more expressive<br>
than only allowing triangles or polygons.<br>
<br>
If the goal is software that can fill the role of Solidworks, CSG<br>
operations on polygon meshes isn't enough, though it's probably a<br>
necessary part.<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
bergey<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>